In re Warren

In re Warren  (95-355); 164 Vt 618; 669 A.2d 558

[Filed 01-Nov-1995]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-355

                             OCTOBER TERM, 1995


In re Mark E. Warren, Esq.           }          APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }          Professional Conduct Board
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }          DOCKET NO. 93.34


       In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

       Pursuant to the recommendation of the Professional Conduct Board filed
  July 17, 1995, and approval thereof, it is hereby ordered that Mark E.
  Warren, Esq., be publicly reprimanded for the reasons set forth in the
  Board's Final Report attached hereto for publication as part of the order
  of this Court.  A.O. 9, Rule 8E.

       Furthermore, reactivation of Attorney Warren's license to practice law
  in Vermont shall be contingent on his having made restitution to his former
  client, Jesse Smith.  For the first three years following return to active
  practice in Vermont, Attorney Warren shall be on probation subject to the
  conditions set forth in the last paragraph of the Board's Final Report.

  




                                   BY THE COURT:

                                   ________________________________________
                                   Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

                                   ________________________________________
                                   Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                                   ________________________________________
                                   John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                   ________________________________________
                                   James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                                   ________________________________________
                                   Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
[x] Publish

[ ] Do Not Publish


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD





In re: Mark E. Warren, Respondent
       PCB File No. 93.34



                     FINAL REPORT TO THE SUPREME COURT

                          Decision No.    96


       This matter was presented to us by way of stipulated facts, which we
  adopt as our own and incorporate herein as Exhibit 1. Respondent and bar
  counsel appeared before us on June 2, 1995 and presented argument in favor
  of a jointly recommended sanction of public reprimand.  We agree with that
  recommendation.

       Briefly summarized, the facts involve respondent's abuse of alcohol
  while representing clients in serious criminal matters.

       Respondent joined the Vermont Bar in 1990.  Until the autumn of 1993,
  he was a solo practitioner.

       Between early June and late August of 1993, respondent appeared in
  Windham District Court on four different occasions under the influence of
  alcohol.  On the third occasion, the presiding judge warned respondent not
  to appear in court again after consuming alcohol.  Some six weeks later,
  respondent appeared at a sentencing to represent a client charged with a
  felony.  Respondent was so impaired that he was asked to take an
  alco-sensor test.  That test showed an alcohol level of .28%. The hearing
  had to be continued because respondent was too impaired to represent his
  client.

       During this same summer, respondent was arrested and
       
 
   
  subsequently convicted of DWI.  This was his fifth arrest for drunk
  driving since 1985.

       In September of 1993, respondent closed his law practice and checked
  himself into a residential treatment center that same month.  He
  subsequently moved to Boston and has no current plans to return to Vermont. 
  Presently respondent is on inactive status.

       Respondent currently provides pro bono legal services to individuals
  involved with an organization called STEP, Inc., an outpatient counselling
  program for alcoholics and drug addicts. He also provides pro bono legal
  services to individuals at the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans. 
  He is an adjunct professor at Quincy College teaching criminal justice and
  paralegal courses.

       Respondent has remained sober since October 1993.

       By this conduct, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in
  conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR
  1-102(A)(7)(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to
  practice law), DR 6-101(A)(1)(handling a legal matter which the lawyer is
  not competent to handle), DR 6-1011(A)(3)(neglecting a legal matter
  entrusted).
  
       In considering the appropriate sanction, we find the following
  mitigating factors present here:

       *  Respondent has no prior disciplinary record,

       *  Respondent cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings, and

 

       *  Respondent has engaged in interim rehabilitation.

       In aggravation we find that there is a pattern of misconduct.

       We will not countenance the representation of clients in court or in
  any context while the attorney is under the influence of intoxicating
  liquor or drugs.  Given respondent's history of continuing problems with
  alcohol abuse, were he still actively consuming alcohol, we would have no
  hesitation in recommending his suspension from the practice of law for six
  months or longer. Respondent, however, to his credit, has remained sober
  for one and 1/2 years.  We believe, therefore, that respondent's future
  clients can adequately be protected by a public reprimand and an extended
  period of probation.

       We, therefore, recommend that respondent be publicly reprimanded and
  that the Court recommend to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
  which will entertain reciprocal discipline there, that respondent be placed
  on probation for a period of three years with sufficient terms to ensure no
  further violations.  In addition, if and when respondent reactivates his
  Vermont license to practice law, we recommend that respondent be placed on
  probation for a period of three years.  Conditions of his probation shall
  be that he not consume alcoholic beverages and that he engage an attorney
  mentor acceptable to both him and bar counsel with whom he consult on a
  monthly basis about his practice and sobriety.  The mentor would report to
  bar counsel on respondent's status on a quarterly basis.  Finally, in
  regard to

 

  the client for whom respondent appeared in court and was unable to
  function, we recommend that respondent be required to reimburse to that
  former client, Jesse Smith, the entire amount of fee Mr. Smith paid to him.

       Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this   7th  day of   July  , 1995.



                                           PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD

                                           ___________________________
                                           Deborah S. Banse, Chair

___________________________                ___________________________
George Crosby                              Donald Marsh

___________________________                ___________________________
Joseph F. Cahill, Esq.                     Karen Miller, Esq.

___________________________                ___________________________
Nancy Corsones, Esq.                       Mark Sperry, Esq.

___________________________                ___________________________
Paul S. Ferber, Esq.                       Robert F. O'Neill, Esq.

___________________________                ___________________________
Nancy Foster                               Ruth Stokes

___________________________                ___________________________
Rosalyn L. Hunneman                        Jane Woodruff, Esq.

___________________________                ___________________________
Robert P. Keiner, Esq.                     Charles Cummings, Esq.